campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Same-sex marriage
Discussion Points Article Structure Can anyone please tell me how this topic has been edited in a useful way? It hasn't. It's a mish mash of personal opinions without any structure whatsoever. This will be fine-- once we manage to create some sort of ground to build off of and discuss. Right now we are building on quicksand, and it will sink farther and farther into unintelligible chaos. How do you propose we fix this? I think we should take the time to write out the various accepted platforms and perspectives on gay marriage, and then create a separate area for this sort of discussion to take place, using the facts to debate the pros and cons of the issues. That will give a solid basis for easy research, lending to the better informed opinion for many people, should they take the time to read and comprehend. THAT is the goal of this wiki, to raise the bar for discussion, not simply throw opinions into the wind. Slacksimus 06:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :When I got here the page was completely empty. I made the first "personal opinion" post, because I was trying to get the discussion started. If people have a problem with that, I'm perfectly happy to go back to just blogging and not defacing your pretty wiki with my personal opinions.--Kg6cvv 16:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I agree with the first post. I think the purpose of this wiki is to present coherent arguments, not individual opinions. I think a major problem to overcome is who decides on the structure of representing this debate. I would propose that we seperate this into for and against gay marriage, and then each individual opinion will be organized by why. Even better would be to edit these opinions together and if a user arrives that does not see his / her opinion represented could edit themselves in. Another problem I forsee, especially for gay marriage, would be bigotry / hateful speech. Regardless of it's validity (or lack thereof) the wiki should represent the entire spectrum on opinion. If someone condemns homosexuals (and therefore is opposed to gay marriage) then there opinion should be represented. It should still be a gr ammatically correct and coherent argument, but should not be removed. --Bubaflub 09:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure where to put this, and as mentioned above the main article is far from complete, but I'd like to make a quick few points on the subject at hand. 1) I believe that homosexuals deserve every single civil right that I do as a heterosexual. 2) I believe that the institution of "marriage" predates the United States of America, and has been historically defined as a union between a man and woman, and that this opinion is far too deeply embedded in our collective culture to be ignored. 3) I believe that any attempt to legislate this issue politically is an attempt to legislate subjective morality, which I oppose. 4) I would like to see a private sector solution to this. My suggestion: offer homosexuals incorporation as an S Corp or LLC. Legally, they can be listed "partners" of one another (or any other title they choose), and can incorporate all joint finances, insurance, legal authority (i.e. power of attorney), etc. into this new legal entity. This protects the civil rights of all homosexuals, recognizes their struggle for justice, preserves the identity of "traditional" marriage, and best of all, could be done TODAY without involving our already over-burdened (over-active?) Federal Government. As far as I know, homosexuals are currently free to host parties of any size, and include any religious figures who choose to attend. Thus, they can have a wedding, and list each other as husband and husband or wife and wife in their official (state-issued) articles of incorporation. This resolves everything but an altogether moot legal technicality. If any of these opinions are useful to the article, please enjoy. Your pal, Zaphod Tralfamadore. I think that we need to keep discussion, or undermining comments out of the arguments listed in the article. I will delete personal discussions that happen on the pro-marriage side, because I think they have no place in an article. Discussions on the topic need to happen in the 'discussions' page. I think one should feel free to refine and strengthen an argument, but not to undermine or question it in the article. If a point has not been brought up, bring it up. If it has, and you don't agree with it, read the opposing side and see if your counter argument is listed. Respect this as a forum for free speech.--Nhcollegedem 19:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :Seems like discrimination to me. If you're going to remove "pro-marriage" comments, you might as well remove "anti-marriage" comments as well. We might as well just recommend this article for deletion if you're going to delete any discussion with a hint of pro or anti gay marriage. This article is one which allows for multiple viewpoints, as it isn't titled "Arguments For Gay Marriage". Don't restrict free speech, thanks. --Anphanax 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Counterpoint I hope no one has a problem with me using the term counterpoint. What I mean is that each argument should not only be brought up but some attempt to refute or otherwise bring the argument into contention. If all of the arguments couldn't be brought into this type of contention, then there ovbiously wouldn't be any debate left.--Bob 11:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I think that counter points should occur in each separate piece of For and Against. So, if you see a point that you disagree with in For, you should write why that point is in contention in Against, because the nature of that refutation would support Against. It will also prevent the page from becoming a series of points and counterpoints. Do you agree? Slacksimus 11:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :I don't agree. For example this comment would have no place in other part of the page, it makes sense only if it's attached to your point/opinion. -- Blackdog 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::I would prefer the arguments remain separate, and answer arguments posed by another argument as they would from something independent from the wiki. Many of the arguments posed are unoriginal, so it is not necessary to answer them immediately. Doing so makes the article look exactly like a message board, which I think we can do better than. I suggest constantly evolving essays, each one answering the other one's arguments. Makes it look nicer and more scholarly. Right now the 'Pro' argument looks the nicest, though I think it could stand to be a bit more organized. The 'Con' argument looks very messy and is a bit of a pain to read.--Ferguson 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC) General Discussion Why should the government be in the business of defining marriage at all? It seems to me that this should all be in the purview of contract law so that nobody ever has to be subject to having others of differing beliefs tell them whether or not they can call their particular relationship "marriage." Since it's probably not that likely that the government will ever start minding its own business about such things, I think it would be preferable to leave it to the states, because it's a lot easier to move from state to state than to leave the country. --Kg6cvv 23:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :The answer to your question is quite simply, "most people don't agree with you, and they never will." Most people do not want their marriages to be governed by contract law and most do want the government and other large institutions to subsidize families in some basic ways, like health insurance benefits, baseline "rights" so divorces don't end in destitution, etc. It doesn't matter how much "sense" your ideas make, it is just never going to happen that way. It will never be preferable to leave it to the states. What if we had left racial segregation to the states? As a nation we need more compassion and understanding.--66.229.43.175 00:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :Is there any choice other than to leave it to the state? Marriage by definition is a legal status granted by the state, so therefore it must have some specific legal definition. I think that a "separation of bedroom and state" might be helpful. There are symbols that bear respect. While 'compassion and understanding' are important, and nobody deserves discrimination and abuse, there are some ideas afoot as palatable as "2+2=3". Enjoying and appreciating all good neighbors as people is one thing; acquiescing to an idea I feel untenable is another. Likely, those on the other side would feel the same about some of my beliefs. Let us disagree agreeably. But what about those who believe that to allow gay marriage erodes a fundamental American value? How can the two viewpoints be reconciled? CitizenJohn 01:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :There's the rub. How do you balance the value of Privacy with the value of ... Um, what value prevents Gay Marriage? I know there's the Dogma of one of the major religions, but the Christian Bible, Jewish Torah and Islamic Koran were not used to write the Declaration of Independence. And the value of Bigotry, Prejudice and Fear of what is different have never seemed positive to me. Honestly, I just don't understand what prevents us from recognizing people as people and letting them live without fear of persecution from people who just hate without reason. Chadlupkes 02:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: While people who embrace homosexuality may face levels of persecution it's not the government's job to force people to accept and approve of this lifestyle. I also hope you're not associating "the Christian Bible, Jewish Torah, and Islamic Koran" with "Bigotry, Prejudice, and fear of what is different". The only role the government should have in protecting homosexuality should be preventing hate crimes against these individuals. Every person, no matter the race, creed, political views, faith, or sexuality is entitled to protection by the government against those who hate. :::Actually, and no offense intended to anyone here, I do associate the dogma with prejudice, because I've been on the receiving end of that bigotry. And I know it comes directly from the religous dogma of the big three, because I was told as much. :::If the only role is protection of individuals, we fail. There is no adequate way to 'prevent' hate crimes if we continue to allow the dogma to be taught that it's ok to hate. Giving minority voices the ability to file a lawsuit or something else after they have been beat to a pulp doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse. And the issue of approved marriage granting hundreds of government rights automatically, while not granting those rights to couples that are not 'approved' also fails to prevent, because it automatically creates a minority of the underserved, and a sense of entitlement for those who subscribe to the hate dogma that they are correct and thus have the right to discriminate even if the law says otherwise. :::Sorry, but I've been thinking on this and living it for decades. Chadlupkes 19:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I know some people out there do not agree with the idea of gay people getting married, but why not? What harm can it do? - JM, July 5th 19:50 Pacific. -I agree with JM. Do people really have a right not to be offended? I'd like to note that this issue comes along before every midterm election. It's a fear mongering tool used (very effectively) by the Republicans. -MAssMedia :People don't have a right not to be offended but if you give people someplace to go where they won't be offended all the time, they are less likely to try to force you not to offend them. Smaller polities are better. --Kg6cvv 16:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :You know it works both ways right? I'd just like to say that gay marriage should be a non-issue. I frankly do not care if two people who love each other get married who are of the same sex. Even if it is "offensive to god" you have no say in their lives because we have freedom of religion here in America. You cannot force your religious beliefs on others. Another point is to ask yourself if gay marriage is allowed, is it really going to affect your life in a harmful way? What possible harm can come of it? People need to wise up and be more accepting of others. Gay marriage is not a problem and you should not care about what type of people get married. Sheesh. :What are your thoughts on incest? --Jeolmeun 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC) -I think this discussion should be in the "discussion" section should it not? Anyway, I often hear opponents to gay marriage complain that they think allowing gay marriage is the first step down a slippery slope. So probably polygamy comes next. After polygamy I guess it's a child molesting free for all. I don't see child molestation becoming popular, but I think the slippery slope issue needs to be analyzed and a good counter to that way of thinking needs to be developed. Here's a problem: I see at least one "credible" source on homosexuality that isn't. Conservative Christian groups have a way of giving Christian opinion the same weight as peer-reviewed scientific journals. We see this in the evolution debate. Should there be some standard on weighing the credibility of articles? Should there be a "peer-review" tag or something like that? I have no problem people expressing opinions, but I DO have a problem with people claiming opinion or religion is scientific fact. Not just pro/anti Since the purpose of this site is supposed to be to elevate the discussion above the level of the simplistic, emotion-filled arguments we all hear on TV, I've added two sections outside the "pro/anti" sections, because I believe they are neither. I've added a section on states rights and a section on civil unions only, because they are two solutions to the problem that, while they could/would (states rights/civil unions only, respectively) grant equal rights to people who want to join with partners of the same sex, they are neutral with respect to whether those things are "marriage," since in my opinion marriage is a very charged term with most people, both religiously and emotionally. In my opinion these are both "moderate" positions. Of course, I'm sure people on both extremes will be dissatisfied with either allowing gay "marriage" anywhere, or not calling unions between gays "marriage" everywhere. --Kg6cvv 16:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ---- Wonderful addition. The format on this page is so far the best I've seen on one issue. The content needs more work, and I think we need to cleanse the more personal voicings. I'd like to see all the arguments presented in a way that resembles wikipedia, but isn't worried about bias. You know what I mean? --Ferguson 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Homosexual Marriage I think I heard Kevin McCullough say that homosexual marriage is an oxymoron or there is no such thing because marriage is (by definition?) between a man and a woman. --Jeolmeun 19:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :That's a non-argument, because words are defined by how we use them. They are not static things, otherwise you'd get punched in the nose if you called someone "nice." The word "marriage" as it's used in contemporary America means all those things that come with marriage such as the right to visit someone in the hospital, inheritance rights, the right to file a joint tax return, etc. --Kg6cvv 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::Why would people get the right to file a joint tax return? I think this is discriminatory to single people and to roommates. -- Blackdog 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)